Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think we are in agreement.
I see where you're coming from and you have a point.
My problem is that when people express an opinion and people accept that when they say their "faith" gives it to them that they accept that as a legitimate response. It shouldn't be.
"my religion says so" isn't a valid reason to pass a law - especially in a state where we have the first amendment ...[text shortened]... should be able to back that view up with something more than just that your god says so.
Kelly
KJ, to get back to science, you believe the world to be about 10K years old, how do you account for the ice core data that for the past 100 years of data taking clearly show yearly layers of ice and snow and they continue for a couple of hundred thousand years, miles deep of such layering? This has nothing to do with people misreading radioactive rocks and such, it shows clearly yearly cycles going way back in time over 100,000 years. Are you going to say years didn't last as long then? How do you rationalize this?
Originally posted by sonhouseWell now that is the point isn't it, we have ice cores, and we have
KJ, to get back to science, you believe the world to be about 10K years old, how do you account for the ice core data that for the past 100 years of data taking clearly show yearly layers of ice and snow and they continue for a couple of hundred thousand years, miles deep of such layering? This has nothing to do with people misreading radioactive rocks and ...[text shortened]... 00,000 years. Are you going to say years didn't last as long then? How do you rationalize this?
people dating them to whatever age they think is right. We have
radioactive this that and the other thing and we have people also
dating that to certain ages too. If the universe is only a few thousand
years old, that would mean our dating methods are amiss now
would it not?
I really do not know how old the earth is, or how old the universe is
for that matter. It could be billions of years old, or thousands, I do
not know, and my knowledge about that even if I accept billions of
years old will still be the same, I really don't know...I know what
people tell me, I know they put a lot of thought into it, but did they
cover all the bases, did they take it all into account? Never having
seen radioactive decay actually decay for thousands, millions, or
billions of years I can only assume certain things are true. Knowing
we have only been looking at this stuff for a very short time period
how do I know if we look at it a little longer we will see something else
occur that changes our perspective on the whole matter?
Since I don't know, I say what I think about the age of the universe
is a matter of faith, it is what it is no matter what I think about it, and
getting it right or wrong doesn't add to or take away from my life in
the least.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnti-science, are we...?
Well now that is the point isn't it, we have ice cores, and we have
people dating them to whatever age they think is right. We have
radioactive this that and the other thing and we have people also
dating that to certain ages too. If the universe is only a few thousand
years old, that would mean our dating methods are amiss now
would it not?
I reall ...[text shortened]... nd
getting it right or wrong doesn't add to or take away from my life in
the least.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…Well now that is the point isn't it, we have ice cores, and we have
Well now that is the point isn't it, we have ice cores, and we have
people dating them to whatever age they think is right. We have
radioactive this that and the other thing and we have people also
dating that to certain ages too. If the universe is only a few thousand
years old, that would mean our dating methods are amiss now
would it not?
I reall ...[text shortened]... nd
getting it right or wrong doesn't add to or take away from my life in
the least.
Kelly
people dating them to whatever age they think is right..….
I hope you don’t think that they FIRST decide what age of the oldest layer of the ice cores BEFORE looking at the ice cores? -That would be an absurdity and obviously they wouldn’t do that because FIRST they would count the number of annual layers and only THEN would the conclude that the oldest layer is X number of years old because there are X number of annual layers -that is just scientific method.
…but did they cover all the bases, did they take it all into account? Never having
seen radioactive decay actually decay for thousands,…
Are you completely ignoring what sonhouse said? He said “…This has nothing to do with people misreading radioactive rocks …” etc -it merely involves counting the many thousands of annual layers and any dating by radioactive dating is merely a non essential but useful confirmation of the dates -how could the mere counting of the annual layers be “misread”? if X number of annual layers are counted in a strata then the oldest layer in that strata must be at least X number of years old -yes or no? -if no, then explain how not. It is obviously just very basic logic and not “faith” that makes people conclude from counting X number of annual layers in a strata that the oldest layer in that strata must be at least X number of years old.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNope you have a point? I may be reading you wrong, are you one of
Anti-science, are we...?
those people who think asking questions about what others think is
true is wrong? I mean education in your opinion is simply accepting
what is being spoon fed to you; you demand others take what you
tell them is true and if they have doubts they need to keep their
questions to themselves least they get labeled anti-science or some
other name you can come up with?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf I'm not mistaken the method used to date the ice covering that
[b]…Well now that is the point isn't it, we have ice cores, and we have
people dating them to whatever age they think is right..….
I hope you don’t think that they FIRST decide what age of the oldest layer of the ice cores BEFORE looking at the ice cores? -That would be an absurdity and obviously they wouldn’t do that because FIRST they wou ...[text shortened]... layers in a strata that the oldest layer in that strata must be at least X number of years old.[/b]
modern airplane buried in was thousands of years old by the
layered method. Please read what I said, you could be right the
universe could be billions of years old, I do not know, and I
submit neither do you.
I heard about this years ago, thought it was millions of years of
ice but this was all I could find tonight. I know there are better
sites out there on this topic I ran into on a few weeks ago, but
do not know where.
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you're pretty clear of demonstrating anti-science.
Nope you have a point? I may be reading you wrong, are you one of
those people who think asking questions about what others think is
true is wrong? I mean education in your opinion is simply accepting
what is being spoon fed to you; you demand others take what you
tell them is true and if they have doubts they need to keep their
questions to themselves least they get labeled anti-science or some
other name you can come up with?
Kelly
I think it's you who are spoon-fed with anti-science.
That's my point.
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm..….
If I'm not mistaken the method used to date the ice covering that
modern airplane buried in was thousands of years old by the
layered method. Please read what I said, you could be right the
universe could be billions of years old, I do not know, and I
submit neither do you.
I heard about this years ago, thought it was millions of years of
ice but th ...[text shortened]... , but
do not know where.
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm
Kelly
This site has just laughable anti-science.
It starts with the stupidly unscientific comment:
“I'm still in shock! Are these aircraft found buried in ice, more than 3,000 years old -- or what? …”
It provides a further link to: http://www.beforeus.com/third.php
Where it speaks of:
“….
· The rapid birth of the Grand Canyon
· The seaport that climbed a mountain range
· The mummy that came up with a volcano…”
-among other absurdities.
If ANY of this was fact (including the bit about the plane being berried in ice thousands of years old without explanation), it would have obviously been all over the news long ago and we would all know about it. The fact that I haven’t heard of non of this is shows that it is either just all made up or is a massive distortion of the facts.
I am sure you can find a vast number of similar anti-science and pseudoscience websites on the net if you put effort into it but don’t bother to show me yet more of the same.
Can we now get back to real science?
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's simple really. Since there are a finite number of atoms, and they move in circles, every life, every event, every happening has happened before and will happen again. The airplane is left from a prior cycle.
If I'm not mistaken the method used to date the ice covering that
modern airplane buried in was thousands of years old by the
layered method. Please read what I said, you could be right the
universe could be billions of years old, I do not know, and I
submit neither do you.
I heard about this years ago, thought it was millions of years of
ice but th ...[text shortened]... , but
do not know where.
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI heard about it quite awhile ago, how long ago I don't recall, the
[b]…http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm..….
This site has just laughable anti-science.
It starts with the stupidly unscientific comment:
“I'm still in shock! Are these aircraft found buried in ice, more than 3,000 years old -- or what? …”
It provides a further link to: http://www.beforeus.com/third.php
Where ...[text shortened]... o it but don’t bother to show me yet more of the same.
Can we now get back to real science?[/b]
only reason I posted that was that I told someone I would post
something on it. I may attempt to find out more about it, that was
not the first site I ran accross the other was better, but like I said
I don't remember where it was. You are really hung up on calling it
an anti-science sight, I don't think it was anything out side of someone
talking about an event. I guess if you can paint it as something really
bad it makes avoiding possible points made a little easier.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasYea, you seem to say that over and over, your point is the call me
I think you're pretty clear of demonstrating anti-science.
I think it's you who are spoon-fed with anti-science.
That's my point.
anti-science I get it. Since it you seem to say that about other time
you respond to me it isn't difficult for me to understand you.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf what was claimed there had even the slightest credibility then it would be a world-wide news sensation because it would clearly contradicted well established scientific facts.
I heard about it quite awhile ago, how long ago I don't recall, the
only reason I posted that was that I told someone I would post
something on it. I may attempt to find out more about it, that was
not the first site I ran accross the other was better, but like I said
I don't remember where it was. You are really hung up on calling it
an anti-science s nt it as something really
bad it makes avoiding possible points made a little easier.
Kelly
So why has it not been a world-wide news sensation?
Was it covered up? Even if the authorities strangely wanted to cover it up (why would they?) it would be virtually impossible to cover up something as sensational as this -there would be no stopping thousands of people shouting about it in every corner of the world. Therefore, it is just not credible that such claims have any real credibility.
If a website claims that there was something observed that proves the Earth is flat and yet this claim didn’t even ever enter the news, what would you conclude from that? Would you conclude this sensational observation was simply ignored despite being credible? -surely if it was credible it wouldn’t be ignored? Surely you would conclude that such a sensational claim must have no credibility?
Why haven’t we seen anything about this plane on the news?
Originally posted by KellyJayTo be anti-science is to deny the power of science. But you know, without science we would soon be back to the supersticious ages when we put our faith to supernatural powers.
Yea, you seem to say that over and over, your point is the call me
anti-science I get it. Since it you seem to say that about other time
you respond to me it isn't difficult for me to understand you.
Kelly
I'm happy to live in an age when science can explain the universe in a better way than ever. No anti-science people should even attempt to drag us back again.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayBut the very act of bringing to the table these pseudo-scientific articles proves you don't want to just look at real evidence, only in bringing down that evidence. Since we have ice core data that we KNOW built up layer by layer, year by year, for at least the last 100 years because they were documented, what is wrong with extrapolating back 200 years or 2000 years when you have seen solid evidence dating back 100 years at least.
I heard about it quite awhile ago, how long ago I don't recall, the
only reason I posted that was that I told someone I would post
something on it. I may attempt to find out more about it, that was
not the first site I ran accross the other was better, but like I said
I don't remember where it was. You are really hung up on calling it
an anti-science s nt it as something really
bad it makes avoiding possible points made a little easier.
Kelly
Why do you deny something this simple? You say you just don't know but are you really interested in finding out the truth or are you just hiding your head in the sand and covering up your ears going NA NA NA NA NA like a ten year old not wanting to hear facts.
Why do you deny such simple evidence? This is not indirect evidence, it would be like denying tree rings grow annually. There is a direct correlation between the annual tree ring growth and the annual ice pack growth. Haven't you seen those tree ring pictures of tree's thousands of years old that were cut down and just counting back the years? Or do you think even something as simple as that is tainted, but by what?
Do you think some years a tree gets ten growth rings? Do you think some years a tree goes ten years between growth rings? What makes you reject this kind of data? Could it be you are so full of Christianity and are so blinded by what MEN have supposedly deduced as to the age of the earth from the bible that you simply refuse to consider scientific data? Can you site a biblical scholar who refutes annual tree ring growth data? Do you have a creationist scientist providing direct evidence AGAINST ice core data coming extremely reliably year by year just like trees? If so, show it, if not then we have to conclude you are just blinded by men who have just taken it upon themselves to decide the age of the earth. Remember, GOD did not say the age of the earth was 10000 years old, only MEN attempting to DERIVE that age. Jesus NEVER said a word about the age of the earth, only his followers and those thousands of years later, starting I think with Isaac Newton.
BTW, did you notice the bottom line of that site you showed us?
http://www.beforeus.com/third.php
The bottom line is all this pap is FOR SALE for 20 bucks. Does that strike you as odd? Probably not, you would think that just fine. Why is not such 'evidence' reported in papers submitted to archeological journals? Why is it just in a totally unknown book for sale for 20 bucks. Normally that's where you find the real reason for the site, crass commercialism. Just like the idiots who say the moon landings in '69 were faked and produce unsound 'evidence' that just happens to be in a book for sale for 20 bucks. Sound similar? It should, but I assume you can differentiate between the two saying the ice age data from this site to be fine but disagree with the moon landing hoaxers because the moon landing hoaxers don't fly into the biblical dogma built up over thousands of years.
In the past 100 years of ice core data taking there has NEVER been a case of layers coming less than one year apart. There is a reason for that if you really want to think about it: There is not enough time in one day for multiple layers to thaw and freeze even if the temp goes up and down like that, it would effect layers only microns deep. These layers happen when entire layers get thawed out big time by the heat of summer and then refreeze come winter, which adds its own layer of snow and ice build up. Why is that so hard to understand? I fear it is not so hard to understand, I fear ii is an innate sense of stubbornness that keeps you forever in the dark deliberately, not even WANTING to look at real data because you think it tainted by the fact that humans observed it, humans being layered in sin, therefore cannot understand ANYTHING in the world, especially when it comes to refuting biblical stories.